Gay Bashing at the Smithsonian

[cali]

By FRANK RICH
Published: December 11, 2010

EACH Aug. 4, my wife Alex and I visit a church to light candles for two people we loved who both died tragically on that day two years apart — my mother, killed at 64 in a car crash, and Alex’s closest friend from graduate school, killed by AIDS at half that age. My mother was Jewish but loved the meditative serenity of vast cathedrals. Alex’s friend, John, was a Roman Catholic conflicted by a religion that demonized his sexuality. Our favorite pilgrimage is to an Episcopal church, Grace Cathedral in San Francisco, not as some sectarian compromise but because of its AIDS chapel, a haunting reminder of the plague that ravaged that city’s population, especially its gay men, some time ago.

<snip>


Not every artist struck down by AIDS could hit so generous a note. Such was the case with David Wojnarowicz, a painter, author and filmmaker, who, like Haring, was a fixture of the East Village arts scene in the 1980s. When his mentor and former lover, the photographer Peter Hujar, fell ill with AIDS in 1987, Wojnarowicz created a video titled “A Fire in My Belly” to express both his grief and his fury. As in Haring’s altarpiece, Christ figures in Wojnarowicz’s response to the plague — albeit in a cryptic, 11-second cameo. A crucifix is besieged by ants that evoke frantic souls scurrying in panic as a seemingly impassive God looked on.

Hujar died in 1987, and Wojnarowicz would die at age 37, also of AIDS, in 1992. This is now ancient, half-forgotten history. When a four-minute excerpt from “A Fire in My Belly” was included in an exhibit that opened six weeks ago at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, it received no attention. That’s hardly a surprise, given the entirety of this very large show — a survey of same-sex themes in American portraiture titled “Hide/Seek.” The works of Wojnarowicz, Hujar and other lesser known figures are surrounded by such lofty (and often unlikely) bedfellows (many gay, some not) as Robert Mapplethorpe, John Singer Sargent, Grant Wood, Thomas Eakins, Georgia O’Keeffe, Andy Warhol, Andrew Wyeth and Haring. It’s an exhibit that would have been unimaginable in a mainstream institution in Wojnarowicz’s lifetime.

The story might end there — like Haring’s altarpiece, a bittersweet yet uplifting postscript to a time of plague. But it doesn’t because “Fire in My Belly” was removed from the exhibit by the National Portrait Gallery some 10 days ago with the full approval, if not instigation, of its parent institution, the Smithsonian. (The censored version of “Hide/Seek” is still scheduled to run through Feb. 13.) The incident is chilling because it suggests that even in a time of huge progress in gay civil rights, homophobia remains among the last permissible bigotries in America. “Think anti-gay bullying is just for kids? Ask the Smithsonian,” wrote The Los Angeles Times’s art critic, Christopher Knight, last week. One might add: Think anti-gay bullying is just for small-town America? Look at the nation’s capital.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/opinion/12rich.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[denem]

2. 4 Keith

[Heidi]

3. Recommended.

:kick:

[myrna minx]

4. K&R n/t

[me b zola]

5. K&R

[Lefta Dissenter]

6. Gay bashing?

C'mon, Frank Rich - call it what it is. That piece of art was removed because it offended the god-icon-worshippers (many of whom are also homophobic), not because of the sexual theme. The conservatives would have gone after that piece regardless of which exhibit it was part of (remember Madonna's video?). It's not much different from the violence as a response to publication of drawings of Muhommad - the extremists threatened the financial survival of the Smithsonian. It doesn't matter to them that that particular exhibit wasn't publicly funded - they saw their idol being degraded, so they called out their armies.

I went to the exhibit last week, and it was beautiful, poignant, painful, touching... Actually, the exhibit was about sexual ambiguity in art, not just homosexuality. There were a lot more graphic sexual images that would have drawn fire, if that had been the focus of the attack. This was a "religious offense."

I'm disappointed that the video was removed, but the directors of the Smithsonian are in a tough spot, knowing that they'll be facing a barrage of attacks from the conservatives in the years to come. They have to walk a delicate line. I'd encourage people to write to the Smithsonian from the perspective of understanding the difficult spot they're in, rather than just pouncing on the gay-bashing theme.

[social_critic]

7. Maybe it's the religious theme rather than homophobia

Me thinks you may be pointing fingers in the wrong direction.